Brown v. Glendale, City of et al
Filing
85
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Defendants' motion for leave to file its summary judgment motion and exhibits thereto under seal (Doc. 80 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e), the lodged documents will not be filed, but will remain under seal. The Court will extend the time provided by LRCiv 5.6(e) for Defendants to act. Defendants may, within 15 days of the entry of this Order, (1) resubmit the motion and its exhibits for filing in the public record, or (2) file a new motion to seal that conforms with the requirements delineated in this order. (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 12/26/19. (SLQ)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Antonio Brown,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-18-01267-PHX-DWL
City of Glendale, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file their summary
16
judgment motion and exhibits thereto under seal (Doc. 80). For the reasons stated below,
17
the motion is denied without prejudice.
18
The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that
19
a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of
20
access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To
21
do so, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual
22
findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
23
disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The
24
Court must then “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the
25
party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation
26
marks omitted). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain
27
judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
28
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation
1
marks omitted).
2
The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their
3
attachments where the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.”
4
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A
5
motion for summary judgment is clearly such a motion, and the “compelling reasons”
6
standard applies to the motion and its exhibits.
7
Defendants state that the motion “contains confidential medical records of
8
testifying witnesses and privileged and confidential transcripts of grand jury testimony
9
from Officer Gonzalez.” (Doc. 80 at 1.) The motion to seal is three sentences long and
10
seeks to seal 632 pages—the entirety of the summary judgment motion and all 18
11
exhibits. Essentially, Defendants request that the Court resolve this case entirely in
12
secret.
13
Defendants have not attempted to “articulate compelling reasons supported by
14
specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
15
public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (emphasis
16
added). Moreover, the Court notes that at least some of the exhibits the parties seek leave
17
to file under seal seem so innocuous that the Court wonders what interest Defendants
18
have in maintaining secrecy. (See, e.g., Doc. 81-11, Exh. 10.)
19
Thus, the motion is denied without prejudice. To the extent that the parties wish
20
to try again, they must include—for each document they wish to file under seal—a
21
specific description of the document and compelling reasons for sealing that document,
22
supported by specific facts. The more specific and compelling the reasons and facts
23
provided are, the more likely it is that the Court will find that compelling reasons justify
24
sealing the documents. To the extent that only portions of certain documents might
25
satisfy the Kamakana standard, such that Defendants wish to propose redactions,
26
Defendants shall lodge under seal unredacted versions in which the text which
27
Defendants wish to redact is highlighted to facilitate the Court’s review.
28
Accordingly,
-2-
IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Defendants’ motion for leave to file
1
2
its summary judgment motion and exhibits thereto under seal (Doc. 80).
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e), the lodged
4
documents will not be filed, but will remain under seal. The Court will extend the time
5
provided by LRCiv 5.6(e) for Defendants to act. Defendants may, within 15 days of the
6
entry of this Order, (1) resubmit the motion and its exhibits for filing in the public record,
7
or (2) file a new motion to seal that conforms with the requirements delineated in this
8
order.
9
Dated this 26th day of December, 2019.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?